*trolling* No one has an answer to this?
On Oct 5, 2:20 pm, Arvind <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I'm missing something simple here. > > in the following example of Father and Child (parent-child > relationship) > > Father: > > <class name="father" table="father" lazy="false"> > > <!-- identity mapping --> > <id name="ID" unsaved-value="any"> > <column name="ID" /> > <generator class="native" /> > </id> > > <bag name="children" cascade="save-update" lazy="false"> > <key column="father_id" /> > <one-to-many class="child" /> > </bag> > > </class> > > AND Child: > > <class name="child" table="child" lazy="false"> > > <!-- identity mapping --> > <id name="ID" unsaved-value="any"> > <column name="ID" /> > <generator class="native" /> > </id> > > <many-to-one name="my_father" > class="father" > column="father_id" > cascade="none" lazy="false" not-null="true"/> > > </class> > > This mapping says - > A father can have multiple children. > A child can have only one father. > > IF the previously defined mapping and constraints are CORRECT - > then my confusion is regarding many-to-any. > > That is because many-to-any needs to be within a set element > > <set> > <many-to-any ..../> > </set> > > which is throwing me off the multiplicity of the association here! > I mean.. I expected it to be like many-to-one ... but with the "one" > part being heterogeneous. > > Please help! > > thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
